Case Law Details
Jaison James Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The Revenue, having alleged one Salman as the mastermind, has not bothered to place anything on record, which has left innumerable doubts and questions unanswered, like the above. Penalty, therefore, cannot be imposed on surmises, assumptions and presumptions and there is not even any circumstantial evidence brought on record against these appellants, to justify penalty under ‘Section 112’. The one and only allegation against these appellants is that they knew one Salman, the alleged mastermind. They have not even bothered to make proper investigation, and not even of the courier agency who is responsible for couriering the parcel without proper verification, at its end.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
These two appeals are filed against the common Order-in-Appeal C.Cus. I. No. 112 & 113/2018 dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai, against the penalty imposed on the appellants under ‘Section 112’ of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Heard Shri P.A. Augustian, Learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri R. Rajaraman, Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
